prompted most recently by the topic on the ABS light not working, and the fairly frequent replies along the lines of "if you do that the insurance company will refuse your claim".
I just wondered, has anybody on here actually ever had a claim refused either on some technical problem with the car or on some undisclosed modification, or for any other reason.
I haven't much experience of claims within my family in the last 10 years or more but I never got any impression that the insurance company was trying to disallow a claim.
So, is it a real problem or are we worrying too much?
|
Happened to a mate of mine about 10 years ago.
He was a house builder working on a large estate and seen someone driving off in the company van who then waved to him and my friend waved back assuming his was a new guy (he employed about 50 people).
It was only later at lunch time they realised it had been stolen.
As the keys had been left in the ignition it was not covered by the insurance.
Van later used in a massive bank robbery !
|
|
guy i know blew 18 grand a few months back because he left the keys in the door pocket as he locked a gate,insurance said no
|
|
How about after an accident because the car had modifications or would have failed an MOT or because the young driver hadn't been declared as the main driver - all things people have warned about on this site in recent weeks?
|
because the car had modifications or would have failed an MOT or because the young driver hadn't been declared as the main driver - >>
commerdriver: You can find examples of real cases in discussion forums such as at moneysupermarket or consumeractiongroup or moneysavingexpert. Also you can try to trawl through google searches for the correct terms, eg. :
www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/ car motor insurance claim refused not named as main driver
Some results:
www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/techni...l
"13. roadworthiness
Most motor policies contain an express requirement that the vehicle must be maintained in a roadworthy state. If so, where there is good evidence that the loss or damage was caused (or substantially contributed to) because the vehicle was unroadworthy, we are likely to consider it fair for the insurer to reject the claim.
In other cases, the insurer might reduce the payout on the basis that the vehicle was not in good condition. If so, where there is good evidence that the vehicle would have failed an MOT test, we are likely to consider it fair for the insurer to take this into account in assessing its value. "
www.financialombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsm...m
.... When the insurer investigated a new claim, it came to light that the car had been fitted with oversized alloy wheels, spoilers, and chrome wheel arches, ...
On the evidence presented, we accepted the policyholder genuinely believed the car was not modified when she bought it. ....
www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombuds...m
... One example of non-disclosure arises in connection with motor insurance. At some point, most parents consider adding their son or daughter to their motor policies. In deciding whether to allow such an additional driver and what to charge to cover the additional risk, insurers generally use somewhat different standards, though few apply an absolute ban to such drivers. Assessing the risk of the new driver will normally take account of the other cars in the family and the type of vehicle covered. The usual procedure is to ask the policyholder to answer various questions and then make a decision.
If there is subsequently a dispute, then the issue becomes more complicated if the insurer made no record of the questions asked, other than a printed note of declarations. If the customer is not required to sign this, the insurer may find it difficult to establish that the customer has misrepresented the risk. The insurer is under a duty to ask clear questions about matters it considers important ? ?material? ? to its assessment of the risk. But even where it has asked clear questions, if there is no contemporaneous proof, it may find it difficult to demonstrate that it has done so.
We do not have any sympathy with policyholders who obtain insurance for their children?s cars by giving the insurance company false information. However, we do not believe that all parents who have added a son or daughter to their policy as ?occasional users? are trying to defraud the industry.
..... ....
... Mr A?s son telephoned the insurer to arrange motor insurance for himself and his father. After receiving the policy, he telephoned the insurer again to say it had made a mistake. He said his father, rather than himself, should be named as the policyholder and main driver. He stated that his father was the registered owner of the car. ...
When the car was reported stolen, the insurer investigated the claim and found that it was the son who was the owner and main user, not the father. Mr A confirmed this. He said they had registered the policy in his name because the premium was cheaper this way. The insurer then cancelled the insurance, saying it would not have issued this policy if it had known the true situation. ... "
Edited by jbif on 07/07/2009 at 21:17
|
|
Blimey Mr Bif. How long did it take you type that lot?
|
|
|
What I was trying to get to was whether anyone on the forum had it happen to them or someone they knew personally.
I believe it happens in extreme cases but I do not believe reputable insurance companies really try to "wriggle" out of it. What I have not been able to find is some statistical evidence on the number of accidents, and the number of cases the insurance companies refuse to pay.
|
|
yes this has happened to me , many yrs ago , but after severe arguaments , the 3rd party part still stood , but the fully comp side was not honoured
|
|
|
I mentioned this a few weeks ago. A colleague crashed her Mini during heavy snow. Unbeknown to her her husband hadn't declared the non standard wheels.
Insurance wasn't refused, but she had to pay an additional premium and the excess was increased.
|
One of my customers was a all flash no cash man & ran around in a BMW 325i convertable & when 18 months old & still loaded to the gunnells on HP went of the road & into a tree in the wet. The rear tyres were like slicks the insurance said a definate NO!
The guy fled to another country eventually to avoid pursuance from the HP.
Just wasn't worth it for two bald tyres
|
|
IIRC a poster on here a few years back off roaded her MGF and the insurance co. refused to pay out on the basis it had bald tyres. That's the only one I can recall affecting a BR member.
|
I remember that one, they got a lot of stick & no sympathy IIRC, and they also had to pay the council for the lamp post.
Has the OP had a recent prang & is worried that they might investigate their car & find hidden mods such as a performance chip etc?
|
Has the OP had a recent prang & is worried that they might investigate their car & find hidden mods such as a performance chip etc?
nope most recent prang, in unmodified company car, was 20 years ago (touches wood quickly)
why do people always assume there is some hidden agenda, didn't used to happen in the good old days on the backroom :-)
just wondered how seriously they look at this in reality and how much they would find
the query was prompted by the volvo 850 thread and the dire warnings of what would happen if the poster drove it without the abs working.
My initial worry when i read the original post was more about whether the brakes would work but the first 2 replies were along the lines of "you won't be insured"
I just can't see that they would ever be able to trace/prove whether the ABS was working or not. It would be a major investigation which I can't imagine being done except for a major accident, not something they do every time.
|
|
.. What I have not been able to find is some statistical evidence on the number of accidents, and the number of cases the insurance companies refuse to pay. >>
No chance of them publishing that data. The best you will get is the general complaints count of cases that aggrieved policyholders take to the Ombudsman.
www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ar09/a...l
That shows that in the year ending March 2009, the Ombudsman dealt with 6,267 motor insurance related complaints.
I can assure you that I have personally helped the claimants pursue their claims successfully after they had been initially rejected by Insurers for one reason or another but were then shown to be falsely rejected. I am bound by confidentiality clauses (signed by all parties at the time of agreeing the settlements) from revealing any details of those cases. In case you are wondering why I should worry when I am anonymously posting here, the reason is that I am mindful of:
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8103132.stm
|
thanks jbif,
always worth treating email and internet things you type as less than 100% private.
|
|
|
|
Shows the importance of respecting other people's privacy on this site doesn't it ?
|
|
|
|
I used to be a police traffic patrol driver (in the days when there were such things.) I was rammed by a stolen Lotus Cortina. The miscreant was duly apprehended, as we used to say, and convicted of TWOC, disqualified driving, dangerous driving etc. and got 6 months.
A couple of years later I had a touch in my own car. The insurance claim form asked, among other things, had I ever been involved in an accident involving damage to my or any other vehicle. Honest as ever, I disclosed this incident, providing full details. Snotty letter straight back telling me that as I had not disclosed an accident to them they did not consider themselves to be on cover.
Letter straight back to them telling them that this was not any kind of 'accident', that I had been driven into deliberately by the driver of a stolen car attempting to escape etc. etc. They rapidly backed down. I would have been prepared to have taken it all the way to Court if they'd persisted in their initial attitude.
In more recent times, I've been involved with personal injury claims. Insurance companies repeatedly point out that they are not charities. Of course not, they are gamblers. We place bets with them that an event will not happen. They assess the risk that it will, work out the odds and set the stake, known in insurance-speak as the premium. Unlike their kindred spirits in the bookmaking industry, they require us to take active steps to ensure that our bets lose and that they get to keep the stake
I could go on more about his, but for the sake of brevity and avoidance of boredom, I'll cut it short. Remember, the bookie who offers better odds than the rest of the market is trying to pull in business and just might welsh on the winning bet. The cheap insurer (or reverse bookie) is doing just the same. Both will do their level best to avoid paying out.
Personally, I think bookmakers are far more closely regulated and I trust them much more.
|
|
The ever-increasing attitude of insurance companies demanding more and more esoteric information before offering cover is somewhat akin to the dealer asking to see your cards before placing a bet. :-)
|
|
Good point. I asked one company for a motor insurance quote earlier this year. The lady on the phone started asking all kinds of personal information, unrelated to existing cover and motoring related items. I asked why and she said they needed it to carry out a credit check. I said I was asking for a quote, not credit. Response was that it was their standard practice in case people decided that they would like time to pay. I explained that if they gave me a quote and I accepted it I would pay the premium outright and there was absolutely no prospect of me wanting credit. Wouldn't budge on it all, so I told them where to go (politely, of course). In the back of my mind, as well as the sheer intrusiveness of it, was the fact that repeated credit checks can apparently affect your creditworthiness.
|
Many, many years ago at the age of 17, I crunched my first car - a 10 year old '81V Allegro 3 1.1L (in hearing-aid beige). I got it back to my parents' driveway and arranged to have the damage inspected by an insurance assessor. Before the assessor was due to arrive my dad made me remove the "Turbo" badge from the bootlid (cost £2.99 from Halfords IIRC) in case this was determined to be a modification...
Dave TD
|
When I worked at the garage we recovered an accident damaged Triumph Dolomite.
An argument between the various parties ensued over a tyre which I would have described as borderline legal.
As far as we knew, one or other of the insurance companies was refusing to pay.
This carried on for certainly two years, possibly longer.
I think in the end the Dolly owner gave up and washed his hands of the whole thing.
We had a mini-scrapyard at the back of the garage and that Dolomite was never sold, just left to rot.
Edited by ifithelps on 08/07/2009 at 20:31
|
"I just wondered, has anybody on here actually ever had a claim refused either on some technical problem with the car or on some undisclosed modification, or for any other reason."
Last Saturday I was reading a rival paper to the one this site prefers us to read, but I was in a cafe and thats all I could find!
One letter was from a vehicle owner who left his car for an MOT. It failed. The car was then left at the garage for repairs. Whilst at the garage it was stolen and damaged extensively. Insurance refused to pay out as the car didn't have a valid MOT.
The readers query wasn't actually about this, it was something about having to pay for the insurance inspection due to him not technically being insured, but the bit about not being insured as his MOT had expired reminded me of this thread.
|
Years ago I worked with a guy who could best be described as being a sandwich or two short of a picnic. He bought a Transam on the never-never and couldn't afford to run it or keep up the payments. His bright idea for liquidating his assets was to drive the car to a patch of waste ground and set fire to it, reporting it as stolen and duly submitting a claim to his insurers.
He was a bit miffed when they pointed out that the cover he took out was for third party only.
|
I new someone who made a hole in his petrol pipe so that it would leak onto the exhaust (years ago. mini). Car had just started to burn when a passing fire engine stopped and put it out. Damage was limited to just part of the loom. Firemen kept telling him how lucky he was that they were passing! Insurance Co said that as he had fitted an electric fuel pump under the bonnet (instead of on the rear sub frame) there had been an arc between the pipe and the pump, so not interested. He described them as crooks!
On another occasion he had rebuilt his engine and was baffled as to why it would not start. His breakdown cover did not include home start so he towed the car away from his home. He said he struggled not to laugh when the breakdown patrol man said "thats odd all of your tappets have closed up"!
|
One letter was from a vehicle owner who left his car for an MOT. It failed. The car was then left at the garage for repairs. Whilst at the garage it was stolen and damaged extensively. Insurance refused to pay out as the car didn't have a valid MOT.
The garages insurance would have covered that.
whilst in the garages care, they are liable to damage or theft, no matter what their terms and conditions may say!
|
|
failed. The car was then left at the garage for repairs. Whilst at the garage it was stolen and damaged extensively. Insurance refused to pay out as the car didn't have a valid MOT.
I find that one difficult to believe. The value of the car may have been reduced by the cost of the MOT repairs, but it was not valueless (unless it was a £100 banger of course).
|
|
|
|
|
|
